Nuclear plant capacity availability was 96% last week as three reactors were down for maintenance and two reactors were down for refueling outages (see pages 2 & 3).

The Electric Power Research Institute released a study last week detailing how to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. over the next 25-30 years. Among the seven technologies recommended was nuclear power which was targeted to build 64 GWe by 2030. For more information on the study go to www.epri.com/.

Actually, if you read the story, the new symbol isn't meant for general public use but for labeling the source container internal to the device.

From the IAEA website (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/radiationsymbol.html):

"The symbol is intended for IAEA Category 1, 2 and 3 sources defined as dangerous sources capable of death or serious injury, including food irradiators, teletherapy machines for cancer treatment and industrial radiography units. The symbol is to be placed on the device housing the source, as a warning not to dismantle the device or to get any closer. It will not be visible under normal use, only if someone attempts to disassemble the device. The symbol will not be located on building access doors, transportation packages or containers."

My question for you, Mr. Gunter, is why are you degrading the IAEA's actions to provide an additional layer of protection for the public against radiation hazards? Were you critical of the Mr. Yuk stickers that came out in the 1970's as a replacement for the traditional skull-and-crossbones warning label for poisonous substances?

I thought the NIRS was supposed to be concerned with public safety and thus logically would be supportive of any sign or symbol that would help warn the public especially if they know little to nothing about nuclear science or technology.

Instead your comments above and previously on this blog appear more aimed at degrading and destroying nuclear science and technology through fear-mongering and public hysteria than at promoting their safe and judicious use. Why is that?

World nuclear operators appear to have set a record in 2006 for total generation. Led by notably improved output in Canada, Japan and Russia and sustained performance in the US, South Korea, and France, overall generation is likely to exceed 2.87 billion gross megawatt-hours, according to a Platts' Nucleonics Week analysis. The figure in 2005 was 2.77 billion MWh. The US 2006 output of nearly 823 million gross MWh was above 2005's 818 million MWh, but fell short of the 2004 US record of 828 million MWh; the average US capacity factor was just under 90%. Canada's reactors put out 6.2% more MWh in 2006 than in 2005, and Russia's operators got 5.3% more power, about 9 million MWh, from their stations. Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie-1 and Entergy's Vermont Yankee turned in the world's best capacity factors, each above 102%, and the largest output came from E.On's 1,475-MW Isar-2, at 12,442,254 MWh. Full details and tables are in the February 15 Nucleonics Week.

Contributors

Disclaimer

Please note that the opinions expressed on NEI Nuclear Notes do not necessarily reflect official policy of NEI or its members.
This Website/Blog includes links to other sites operated by third parties. These links are provided as a convenience to you and as an additional avenue of access to the information contained therein. We have not reviewed all of the information on other sites and are not responsible for the content of any other sites or any products or services that may be offered through other sites. The inclusion of these links in no way indicates their endorsement, support or approval of the contents of this site or the policies or positions of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable.
You grant us the right to display any information or material you send to NEI Nuclear Notes, unless otherwise directed.